As myownopinions said, Astrology is the study of astronomical movements' effects and influence on human affairs. It would all depend on your personal opinion of when humanity begins and what a human is.
So if you believe that an embryo is a human, then yes, the date of conception would technically be the date that matters as it is the date at which said person can into existence. However, if you believe that a human doesn't become a human until they can survive outside of the womb (which, according to most doctors, assuming that the baby developed properly beforehand, is 24 weeks), then your view would be a bit different.
By that definition of humanity, a fetus would count as a human being, medically, at 24 weeks if that is your criteria, so the date one would use for their astrological chart would be the day at which they turned 24 weeks (which is an estimate, but usually a very accurate one).
However, if your definition of a human being is a baby that has been born alive and conscious, then the astrological date you'd use will be the birth date.
That said, we return to the original point that it depends on your opinion of what is a human being. Seeing as how we as a society, both scientifically and otherwise, have yet to agree on when one would become a human, all of your astrological assumptions will be based on your opinion of when one becomes a human.
I'm thinking on the lines that at conception you get everything that makes you YOU. If these traits are supposedly innate then it makes more sense. I don't see how birth date could be more significant.
Wouldn't astrology matter more based on conception?
← View full post
As myownopinions said, Astrology is the study of astronomical movements' effects and influence on human affairs. It would all depend on your personal opinion of when humanity begins and what a human is.
So if you believe that an embryo is a human, then yes, the date of conception would technically be the date that matters as it is the date at which said person can into existence. However, if you believe that a human doesn't become a human until they can survive outside of the womb (which, according to most doctors, assuming that the baby developed properly beforehand, is 24 weeks), then your view would be a bit different.
By that definition of humanity, a fetus would count as a human being, medically, at 24 weeks if that is your criteria, so the date one would use for their astrological chart would be the day at which they turned 24 weeks (which is an estimate, but usually a very accurate one).
However, if your definition of a human being is a baby that has been born alive and conscious, then the astrological date you'd use will be the birth date.
That said, we return to the original point that it depends on your opinion of what is a human being. Seeing as how we as a society, both scientifically and otherwise, have yet to agree on when one would become a human, all of your astrological assumptions will be based on your opinion of when one becomes a human.
I expanded on this way too much.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
It's still a human embryo regardless of it's age.
I'm thinking on the lines that at conception you get everything that makes you YOU. If these traits are supposedly innate then it makes more sense. I don't see how birth date could be more significant.
--
NeuroNeptunian
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I wasn't arguing for either or any point.